Related work

2026-03-13 02:58:26 +00:00 · 2021-12-21 16:14:59 +00:00
parent c9ff1d9af8
commit 7063acb4e7
1 changed files with 81 additions and 81 deletions
--- a/thesis.tex
+++ b/thesis.tex
@@ -5549,87 +5549,6 @@ functionality of the legacy code.
 \section{Related work}
 \label{sec:unix-related-work}
 \paragraph{Programming languages with handlers} The work presented in
 this chapter has been retrofitted on to the programming language
 Links~\cite{HillerstromL16,HillerstromL18}. A closely related
 programming language with handlers is \citeauthor{Leijen17}'s Koka,
 which has been retrofitted with ordinary deep and parameterised effect
 handlers~\cite{Leijen17}. In Koka effects are nominal, meaning an
 effect and its constructors must be declared before use, which is
 unlike the structural approach taken in this chapter. Koka also tracks
 effects via an effect system based on \citeauthor{Leijen05}-style row
 polymorphism~\cite{Leijen05,Leijen14}, where rows are interpreted as
 multisets which means an effect can occur multiple times in an effect
 row. The ability to repeat effects provide a form for effect scoping
 in the sense that an effect instance can shadow another. A handler
 handles only the first instance of a repeated effect, leaving the
 remaining instances for another handler. Consequently, the order of
 repeated effect instances matter and it can therefore be situational
 useful to manipulate the order of repeated instances by way of
 so-called \emph{effect masking}.
 %
 The notion of effect masking was formalised by \citet{BiernackiPPS18}
 and generalised by \citet{ConventLMM20}.
 %
 \citet{BiernackiPPS18} designed Helium, which is a programming
 language that features a rich module system, deep handlers, and
 \emph{lexical} handlers~\cite{BiernackiPPS20}. Lexical handlers
 \emph{bind} effectful operations to specific handler
 instances. Operations remain bound for the duration of
 computation. This makes the nature of lexical handlers more static
 than ordinary deep handlers, as for example it is not possible to
 dynamically overload the interpretation of residual effects of a
 resumption invocation as in Section~\ref{sec:tiny-unix-env}.
 %
 The mathematical foundations for lexical handlers has been developed
 by \citet{Geron19}.
 The design of the Effekt language by \citet{BrachthauserSO20b}
 resolves around the idea of lexical handlers for efficiency. Effekt
 takes advantage of the static nature of lexical handlers to eliminate
 the dynamic handler lookup at runtime by tying the correct handler
 instance directly to an operation
 invocation~\cite{BrachthauserS17,SchusterBO20}. The effect system of
 Effekt is based on intersection types, which provides a limited form
 of effect polymorphism~\cite{BrachthauserSO20b}. A design choice that
 means it does not feature first-class functions.
 The Frank language by \citet{LindleyMM17} is born and bred on shallow
 effect handlers. One of the key novelties of Frank is $n$-ary shallow
 handlers, which generalise ordinary unary shallow handlers to be able
 to handle multiple computations simultaneously. Another novelty is the
 effect system, which is based on a variation of
 \citeauthor{Leijen05}-style row polymorphism, where the programmer
 rarely needs to mention effect variables. This is achieved by
 insisting that the programmer annotates each input argument with the
 particular effects handled at the particular argument position as well
 as declaring what effects needs to be handled by the ambient
 context. Each annotation is essentially an incomplete row. They are
 made complete by concatenating them and inserting a fresh effect
 variable.
 \citeauthor{BauerP15}'s Eff language was the first programming
 language designed from the ground up with effect handlers in mind. It
 features only deep handlers~\cite{BauerP15}. A previous iteration of
 the language featured an explicit \emph{effect instance} system. An
 effect instance is a sort of generative interface, where the
 operations are unique to each instance. As a result it is possible to
 handle two distinct instances of the same effect differently in a
 single computation. Their system featured a type-and-effect system
 with support for effect inference~\cite{Pretnar13,BauerP13}, however,
 the effect instance system was later dropped to in favour of a vanilla
 nominal approach to effects and handlers.
 Multicore OCaml is, at the time of writing, an experimental branch of
 the OCaml programming language, which aims to extend OCaml with effect
 handlers for multicore and concurrent
 programming~\cite{DolanWM14,DolanWSYM15}. The current incarnation
 features untracked nominal effects and deep handlers with single-use
 resumptions.
 %\dhil{Possibly move to the introduction or background}
 \paragraph{Effect-driven concurrency}
 In their tutorial of the Eff programming language \citet{BauerP15}
 implement a simple lightweight thread scheduler. It is different from
@@ -8275,6 +8194,7 @@ The metatheoretic properties of $\HCalc$ carries over to $\HPCalc$.
 \end{proof}
 \section{Related work}
 \label{sec:related-work-calculi}
 \paragraph{Row polymorphism} Row polymorphism was originally
 introduced by \citet{Wand87} as a typing discipline for extensible
@@ -8322,6 +8242,86 @@ differentiate between \emph{tame} and \emph{wild} functions, where a
 tame function is one whose body can be translated and run directly on
 the database, whereas a wild function cannot.
 \paragraph{Programming languages with handlers} The union of the
 calculi presented in this chapter make up the essence of the
 intermediate representation of the Links programming
 language~\cite{HillerstromL16,HillerstromL18}. A closely related
 programming language with handlers is \citeauthor{Leijen17}'s Koka,
 which has been retrofitted with ordinary deep and parameterised effect
 handlers~\cite{Leijen17}. In Koka effects are nominal, meaning an
 effect and its constructors must be declared before use, which is
 unlike the structural approach taken in this chapter. Koka also tracks
 effects via an effect system based on \citeauthor{Leijen05}-style row
 polymorphism~\cite{Leijen05,Leijen14}, where rows are interpreted as
 multisets which means an effect can occur multiple times in an effect
 row. The ability to repeat effects provide a form for effect scoping
 in the sense that an effect instance can shadow another. A handler
 handles only the first instance of a repeated effect, leaving the
 remaining instances for another handler. Consequently, the order of
 repeated effect instances matter and it can therefore be situational
 useful to manipulate the order of repeated instances by way of
 so-called \emph{effect masking}.
 %
 The notion of effect masking was formalised by \citet{BiernackiPPS18}
 and generalised by \citet{ConventLMM20}.
 %
 \citet{BiernackiPPS18} designed Helium, which is a programming
 language that features a rich module system, deep handlers, and
 \emph{lexical} handlers~\cite{BiernackiPPS20}. Lexical handlers
 \emph{bind} effectful operations to specific handler
 instances. Operations remain bound for the duration of
 computation. This makes the nature of lexical handlers more static
 than ordinary deep handlers, as for example it is not possible to
 dynamically overload the interpretation of residual effects of a
 resumption invocation as in Section~\ref{sec:tiny-unix-env}.
 %
 The mathematical foundations for lexical handlers has been developed
 by \citet{Geron19}.
 The design of the Effekt language by \citet{BrachthauserSO20b}
 resolves around the idea of lexical handlers for efficiency. Effekt
 takes advantage of the static nature of lexical handlers to eliminate
 the dynamic handler lookup at runtime by tying the correct handler
 instance directly to an operation
 invocation~\cite{BrachthauserS17,SchusterBO20}. The effect system of
 Effekt is based on intersection types, which provides a limited form
 of effect polymorphism~\cite{BrachthauserSO20b}. A design choice that
 means it does not feature first-class functions.
 The Frank language by \citet{LindleyMM17} is born and bred on shallow
 effect handlers. One of the key novelties of Frank is $n$-ary shallow
 handlers, which generalise ordinary unary shallow handlers to be able
 to handle multiple computations simultaneously. Another novelty is the
 effect system, which is based on a variation of
 \citeauthor{Leijen05}-style row polymorphism, where the programmer
 rarely needs to mention effect variables. This is achieved by
 insisting that the programmer annotates each input argument with the
 particular effects handled at the particular argument position as well
 as declaring what effects needs to be handled by the ambient
 context. Each annotation is essentially an incomplete row. They are
 made complete by concatenating them and inserting a fresh effect
 variable.
 \citeauthor{BauerP15}'s Eff language was the first programming
 language designed from the ground up with effect handlers in mind. It
 features only deep handlers~\cite{BauerP15}. A previous iteration of
 the language featured an explicit \emph{effect instance} system. An
 effect instance is a sort of generative interface, where the
 operations are unique to each instance. As a result it is possible to
 handle two distinct instances of the same effect differently in a
 single computation. Their system featured a type-and-effect system
 with support for effect inference~\cite{Pretnar13,BauerP13}, however,
 the effect instance system was later dropped to in favour of a vanilla
 nominal approach to effects and handlers.
 Multicore OCaml is, at the time of writing, an experimental branch of
 the OCaml programming language, which aims to extend OCaml with effect
 handlers for multicore and concurrent
 programming~\cite{DolanWM14,DolanWSYM15}. The current incarnation
 features untracked nominal effects and deep handlers with single-use
 resumptions.
 \part{Implementation}
 \label{p:implementation}